[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[John Carl]

Hi Ron,

Sure seems to take me a while to get through my MD posts these days.  That's
a good thing.  Much Quality Activity around here!

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:37 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> John,
> My experience of Krimel is that he understands the final analysis
> but being a "techie" or "motorhead" from where I come from,
> lends itself to reduction. It keeps betterness from getting too
> warm fuzzy and idealized. Because what do we mean when
> we say the dynamic is "better"?
> Having kicked it about for some time, I think we mean that it IS.
>
> For is it better to be than not to be?
>


Depends upon the Quality of one's being, doesn't it?  But that presupposes
awareness of being.  I definitely believe that starting from non-being or
non-awareness, and moving in the being/aware direction is a Good direction.
A move toward betterness.

This is kinda weird because I actually had this dialogue in my head
yesterday as I was delivering a feeder from my shop to the chicken yard, and
contemplating the life of the meat birds.

The meat birds are strange in the chicken world.  The grow so fast and shit
so much and eat all the time.  But as chicks, the run around, play tag, jump
flutter and flap in innocence and abandon that I can't bemoan the fact that
they'll only be around for about six months or feel in any way sorry for
them.  Even tho, given my druthers I'd rather be a laying hen, lasting for
years, experiencing seasons and getting screwed by a colorful rooster on a
regular basis.  But I'd rather be for a short season, than never be at
all.

I think all life feels that Quality.  And it's life that gives the term
meaning.

In the analogy game, I think sq is to reality as DQ is to life.   When I say
"Reality" i mean everything that is.  When I say "life" I also mean
everything there is, but a different aspect of everything.



>
> Now understanding this as a type of randomness is accurate but
> understanding
> it as a kind of contained randomness, now thats getting closer.
> Understanding
> that randomness being contained by attractions, more still.
>
> Some argue that our very being is an excercise of limit.
>
> This idea is the basis for the ancient Greek theories of form.
> The form of the good or  is understood as the form in which all other goods
> emerge from. The good of being.
>
> Limit,the excercising of preffernce in randomness,the good,Limit, the basis
> of measure,
> the art of measure is the art of the good. Arete.
>
> Ratio, to divide, to measure, is the basis for the word ration, which
> extends to rational.
> This is why the Pathogoreans believed the art of mathematics and number was
> divine.
>
> But that took off on a purpose of it's own.
>
> The art of measure, is the art of value judgements, that on which we are
> prepared to act
> apon, is the art of living.
>


The art of measure is the art of life.  I like that.   It is valuing
differentiation that creates being.

I can almost hear Ham in my head now, the valuing subject at the top of the
ontogeny tree.  Or is that an "ontology tree"?  Nevermind.  You know what I
mean even if I don't.

I also liked your derivation of rational from ratio,  Never thought of it
that way before.  Thanks for the realization.

Socrates, speaks alot about what makes one way of practicing this art better
> than the other.
> What does living a good life mean?
> He enumerates the biological,social and intellectual benefits of
> endeavoring in such a fashion,
> These benefits are reason enough for pursing it.
>
>
> -Ron
>
>
>
Reason enough for me, anyway.  But I wonder about poor Krimel who must
submit to whatever  random impulse dominates his day.  I've heard it even
expressed by some in a pejorative way - "that's pretty random" they say when
something doesn't really make sense and is just a throw-way phrase.

I'm  off for the day to a big party at a friends house where I'll be in
charge of....

BBQing the chicken.

John